Sister Helen often speaks about how the way you tell a story changes people’s understanding of your argument. What is effective about how Sister Helen tells this story, and how do her arguments differ from others you have heard concerning crime and capital punishment? Is her story fair to the various sides of the argument?
In response to this question, I would say that the most effective factor in Sister Helen’s storytelling, at least in my opinion, is her overwhelming and accurate presentation of evidence for the innocence of the two men. To be completely honest, when I first got this book I was under the impression that it would simply be stories dripping with pathos for the two men, relying on the readers inherent sense of compassion to convince them of the mens’ innocence. I was therefore pleasantly surprised when I discovered just how much evidence Sister Helen utilized in her argument. Not only was it expansive (her presentation of evidence takes up the first eight to ten pages of the first two chapters) but it was also very well thought-out in it’s layout; she was not just stating facts, she obviously is completely aware of how all the bits and pieces fit together to create a picture of innocence for the two men. Her storytelling strategy of including so much convincing evidence made her argument that the death penalty system is corrupt and failing so much more persuasive. This way, the reader most likely agrees with Sister Helen in regards to the innocence of the two men after the first few pages of each chapter, even the cynical reader who supports the death penalty. In proving the mens’ innocence before she begins dismantling the current death row system, Sister Helen has effectively gained the support of every single possible reader. After all, no one wants to see innocent people executed for crimes they didn’t commit, even those who fanatically support the death penalty as an “eye-for-an-eye” sort of deal, so who can argue that our system is not in some way flawed if men who so obviously did not commit the accused crime can be sentenced to death so easily and absolutely? It is not until after she has garnered the reader’s support that Sister Helen begins to delve into the deficiencies of the death penalty system. In these sections, I believe that Sister Helen’s argument’s greatest strength comes from the fact that she does not advocate aggressively for the complete dismantling of the death penalty. While it is true that she admits that she does not believe the death penalty is just, in the first half of the book she spends the majority of her time writing about the inefficiencies and pitfalls in the current system. This way, no one can deny what she is saying, for no one can deny that there must be problems in the system if, again, men who seem so innocent can be sentenced to death so easily. The most beautiful part about all this, in my opinion, is how both of these major aspects of Sister Helen’s writing hinge on one another. The diligent and scientific presentation of evidence is what makes the reader agree with Sister Helen from the beginning, making her arguments about the death penalty system possible to make. But at the same time, her initial capturing of the readers’ support only remains effective because of her caution to never blindly denounce the death penalty all-together like a stereotypical member of the church, an act that would certainly cause the loss of quite a few readers. All together, her duel-faceted argument is very sound indeed. After all, when I first began reading this I was a fairly firm supporter of the death penalty. Now, due to Sister Helen’s book, I am beginning to waver in my belief that it is just, for while I have not lost my support for it’s principle I have lost my support for it’s practice. And while this may seem like a technicality to some, to me it is a small sign that Sister Helen’s book is slowly accomplishing it’s task of opening our nation’s eyes.
Like Kyle said, the way Sister Helen tells these men’s stories by laying out facts is effective. She displays and proves the dishonesty of the prosecutors of these cases, and does not need anything more than mere facts to make them the bad guys.
She uses a lot of logic, especially when taking on Justice Scalia. She effectively destroys the grounds of his arguments, especially the arguments he used from the Bible, and turns them around so that even the things Scalia specifically uses to support the death penalty ultimately support HER argument against capital punishment. She doesn’t ignore the opposing side, she addresses all the reasons why people would support the death penalty, and then proceeds to discredit them. She tells how if people support the death penalty so that families of victims can have “closure” by having the murderer killed, that this is a weak argument since it takes soooo long for the condemned to actually be put to death and by that time the mourners have found ways to cope and that what happens to the killer is irrelevant to their loss, it doesn’t bring their loved one back. She dismantles the religious reasons in the Bible to support capital punishment when she takes on Scalia.
Prejean just uses so much logical reasoning that it is very easy to follow her arguments and reach her conclusions with her…she takes you by the hand and leads you along her brainwaves, so that you get to think her thoughts and that is effective in getting you to arrive at her conclusions and agree with her opinions.
Suzanna, I feel like I have to disagree with you here. I will say first that Sister Helen Prejean does do a very effective job of laying out the facts in a way that is easy to take in and comprehend. On the other hand, I never felt like she acknowledged the other side of the argument at all. She purposefully paints a very bad picture of the prosecutors, as Kyle has said. She never takes a moment to give the prosecution or capital punishment supporters any credit. I cannot deny that there are cases where the prosecution is exactly as bad as she portrays them, but I think there are many cases where the prosecution lawyers are the good guys as well. While I was reading I kept waiting for her to acknowledge the good parts of our justice system and the reasons we are able to capture the criminals that are out there. Like the prosecutors she attacks so harshly, there are a lot of crucial facts that she leaves out. She also barely recognizes any of the pros of the death penalty. She doesn’t have to agree with death penalty supporters, but it would have been refreshing for her to explain thoroughly why even the pros of capital punishment don’t justify the death of a human being. The first thing we learn in elementary or middle school when writing persuasive papers is to recognize the other side’s pros and argue against them. In my opinion, that was a very important piece that was missing.
Suzanne, I agree entirely with what you have to say. I already agreed with Sister Helen Prejean’s view on the death penalty prior to reading the book but did not view much of the argumentation as compelling. First, while it is possible that a great many would be influenced by the two stories presented in the book, narrative evidence does not truly prove her case. Second, many of the arguments she are very narrow in scope and not applicable to the reasoning of many Americans. In particular, the specific analysis of biblical support for the death penalty is not relevant in a largely secular society. More generally, Sister Prejean uses a handful of death penalty advocates (e.g. Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist) as a metonymy for the entire pro-death penalty movement, characterizing every individual supporter as callous, brutal human beings. I think that overall, the book might convince some people, but much of the more effective argumentation is cloudy by Sister Prejean’s refusal to engage the variety of positions on the death penalty front. For instance, never once is the simple utilitarian deterrence argument mentioned. Such an position would claim that because studies (see http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/104/2/Shepherd.pdf) show that a sufficient number of executions deters murders, the death penalty saves lives so even in the event of an execution of a innocent (an occurrence adding to the deterring effect), simple numerical considerations dictate that the death penalty should be upheld.
Kyle, while I agree with your idea that the book was effective by giving facts, I disagree in the fact that the Sister didn’t blatantly say the death penalty is wrong. In fact, while the evidence was VERY compelling, I also sensed that the vivid descriptions of the men plus the details into their backgrounds were specifically designed to evoke sympathy from the reader for the two men, as well as all death row inmates. Like you, I am a supporter of the death penalty, however unlike you my faith in the concept hasn’t changed at all. I do believe that we should insitute a moratorium on ALL executions untell we can GUARANTEE effectivness of the system so that no Joe’s or Dobie’s slip through and are forced to pay for something they didn’t do.
You bring up an interesting point, Whesley, but I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. You yourself mentioned, correctly, that it is Sister Helen’s portrayal of the men on death row and their predicament that causes the death penalty to seem morally wrong to the reader. This portrayal also makes her position on the death penalty abundantly clear to the reader, and I never doubted for a second that she was against it from the start. I was merely trying to say that her careful wording prevents instant opposition from the reader; if she were to simply come out and say “the death penalty should be abolished” right from the get-go, she would instantly lose many readers. In other words, while it may be inferred from the text quite easily that Sister Helen is against the death penalty, her subtle choice to skirt the core argument and state facts instead keeps skeptical readers from putting her book down, making this an excellent story-telling tactic. So long story short, I one-hundred percent agree with your statement about Sister Helen’s opinion on the death penalty being easily inferred from the text, but I also think that she refrained from explicitly stating her views early and often on purpose in order to prevent a loss of audience.
One of the questions asked by in this category is “Is [sister Helen’s] story fair to the various sides of the argument?” I’m not sure how to answer this question, since it seems to me that because of an author’s opinion one side will inherently be better-defended. I think Kyle and Suzanna are correct that sister Helen did a marvelous job of explaining her position, both by stating her own facts and by refuting those of her opponents, in a way that was both reasonable and convincing, but I would have appreciated a better explanation of the prosecution’s approach to the cases of Dobie and Joe. Suzanna, you point out that Sister Helen acknowledges the points of the opposing side before refuting them, but I felt that, especially in the earlier portions of her book, the views of pro-death penalty members of the judicial system were cursory and used more to support the ridiculousness of their charges against Dobie and Joe than to represent their beliefs. Additionally, though I understand that it wouldn’t really mesh with the flow of the rest of the book, I believe that a more thorough explanation of how the juries were convinced of Dobie and Joe’s guilt would have been very interesting.
Now that you mention it, Suzanna, the prosecution was definitely made out to be the “bad guys” in just about every single case in the book. The small descriptions of their part that do exist have a mistrustful undertone to them, and the prosecution’s world is often made out to be cutthroat, vicious and almost uncaring for human elements. In this book at least, they seem to be only concerned with political advancement and their “score sheet”, following logistics and laws blindly. While this is a brilliant writing tactic, as it provides a stark contrast to the “moral good” that Sister Helen creates for the anti-death camp and therefore subconsciously convinces the reader that pro-death penalty is “evil”, it certainly leaves the reader in the dark. I, for one, have no other knowledge on how the prosecution system works besides what I have learned from this book (excluding small bits I’ve learned elsewhere). So how do I know if Sister Helen’s portrayal is the rule or the exception? I would hate to find out that her otherwise convincing argument is marred by leaving out undesirable information.
Prejean definitely makes her point clear. Like you said, Suzanna, she does take you by the hand and lead you through the arguments, but at times it felt a little too heavy handed, like she was hitting us over the head with it. There were times when the endless bombardment of facts and legal statistics and appeals proceedings got very, very dry. There were times when I felt I’d read what I was reading multiple times already–it got a little redundant. I felt that the argument, while very clear and impassioned, could have benefitted from a more concise presentation.
I felt her argument might have been strengthened by maybe backing off a little..which seems paradoxical, but an argument in which you only extoll the virtues of your own side isn’t going to sway anyone from the other side…the points at which she considered the opposing side’s argument did seem a little cursory (although, on second thought, she did do a pretty good job at making Scalia look like a prick…).
There were portions of the book when she switched tactics, and those where the most compelling to me. For example, on page 112 when she launches into a description of her close friend’s battle with cancer. At first I was like, what? Isn’t this completely off topic? But then she brought it together, and it was this interesting parallel to O’Dell’s story, comparing natural death to dying when you’re perfectly healthy.
On that note, I felt her storytelling was most effective during Dobie’s story, when it wasn’t so dry. What I liked the most was her use of antithesis, pointing out the biblical paintings in the death house, the executioner saying prayers and acting polite–all so contradictory and weird to think about! The imagery was the most vivid here.
@ Maddie: “I felt that the argument, while very clear and impassioned, could have benefitted from a more concise presentation.” Ditto.
As I think all of the posts have agreed, Prejean is most effective in the first two chapters, where the narrative follows two individuals and her relationship with them. Their effectiveness does not hinge on pathos, rather the two men offer a relatable framework with which Prejean illustrates specific examples of wrongful executions. For me, however, the storytelling strength pattered out as the book went on. Margaret Atwood said on storytelling, “we are thought/feeling machines… what really hits people is the story because it’s not an intellectual thing and it’s not just a scream.” While the latter half of “Death of Innocents” lacks neither facts nor emotions, they weren’t well integrated.
I haven’t heard/read many comparable 300-page arguments on either crime or capital punishment (unless Dostoevsky counts?). Most people have their stance on the issue and don’t have much to back it up with. So, I suppose if you look at it that way, Prejean was HIGHLY effective.
As others have said, she did represent opposing views, but none too heartily.
The thing I found most effective in Sister Helen’s argument was initial presentation facts of each case (the first two chapters, like everyone else). She worded each case file in a way that left me indignant and even outraged at the gaping holes in the case that condemned a man to death. In Dobie’s case, the alleged murder weapon was bloodless, the DNA evidence was glossed over, and all other suspects were thrown out! With Joe O’Dell’s case, it was a magic act of vanishing witnesses and fabricated evidence… It seems impossible that the legal system could let this happen, and yet it has happened and is happening right now.
I take Sister Helen’s word with a grain of salt because she has a bias towards the innocence of these men, but I cannot help but agree her that our judicial system is flawed. Because of Sister Helen’s arguments I have been forced to as myself: “How can I place my trust in the government when innocent men die and other suspects walk free and prosecutors thirst for blood?”
I would agree with everyone that Sister Helen gives a very logical, objective look at capital punishmen cases, especially those surrounding the men she was a spiritual advisor too, but I don’t think it is logic alone that makes her argument so expedient. In truth, logic can either lead someone to freedom or to death; the jurors who voted for the death penalty would say that they used logic too in their retribution. (“You kill, you get killed”)It is this futile rationality that makes one’s life insignicant, for you are only a number, and thus disposable. In my mind, it was Sister Helen’s grotesque imagery, situational irony, and juxtapositions that truly made her argument exceptional. First, Sister Helen put incredible effort into describing the material surroundings of each case: the courtroom, the prison, the gurney and the execution room. She very clearly painted a picture off oppression and pain through this imagery and through the thoughts and words of each prisoner. She was very blunt about the feelings of each prisoner and brought attention to the fact that what they are doing is mental torture. The last image you leave with is of a man, being gassed to death, resisting and claiming his innocence, strapped down with a mask over his face. A picture is always worth a thousand words and nothing better than that scene could ignite true fire within each reader. Then, along with that imagery, she loved to point out the irony and absurdness of each case. For example, in Dobie’s case she states that the courts ruled that in the murder he jumpd out a 20″ by 11 “window, which is nearly impossible, especically without smothering more blood than was present. Another great example of absurdness is the “Greenriver killer” in Seattle that killed more than 48 women, but did not receive the death penalty because he promised them information about the bodies. Then she precedes to juxtapose her first hand experiences in the prison with the glamor life of Justice Scalia and also the harsh realities of oppression in prison with the joyous revelry of lawyers who have just finished a death penalty case with a promised death. Last, and probably the most important, she uses emotional pathos through the use of individual stories, some of which make you want to cry for the victim ( the mentally handicapped boy who was killed and thanked his killers for their hospitality) and some that make you just angry ( the story of George Bush making fun of Karla Tucker on CNN).
I think what makes her argument different than the rest is its all encompassing nature of perspectives that feed into the capital punishment debate. This book is not politicized in any way, and is about the morality of killing a human being, guilty or innocent, and about a corrupt system that protects the rich and lets the poor drown. I don’t think she gave a very serious look at the persecutors perspective, but she has a very strong conviction, and I agree with her that whatever someone says, you are taking away a human life and that is immoral. It is hypocrisy to say that if you kill someone, it is immoral, but if we kill you, it is not. There is not longer a credible debate for pro-capital punishment and Sister Helen makes that point very clear in her book.
I apologize for the spelling errors. My computer went crazy and posted before I could fix some of the errors.
Joel, I am slightly confused about the meaning your statement ” This book is not politicized in any way”. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
I agree with some of the others above like Maddie and Naomi in that I would have appreciated some more subtle and concise arguments, although I understand that she purposely pursued blatant methods of persuasion and strong appeals to emotion.
In contrast to others, I did not find the first two chapters the most compelling. In fact, they actually made me want to oppose Prejean because of the in-your-face-I want-to-make-you-mad method of approaching the subject. I had a hard time relating to both stories because I did not like the way they were presented (again I really would have appreciated some subtlety). There were parts that I found poignant and touching but overall it was hard for me to get through the first two chapters because I thought they were overwrought with emotion.
What ultimately convinced me was the dry logic. It was a little hard to get through but I responded much better to the story-telling method of the cold presentation of facts and legal arguments.
When I read the book, I found the purpose of the book to be entirely about pulling the reader’s emotions to believing that the death penalty is wrong. Unlike Maddie, I thought that the statistics, while they were valuable in showing that the cases in the book are more widespread than one thinks, were just icing on the cake. While the two cases and the hypocrisy of political leaders are most effective in persuading readers, I don’t think the book would benefit more by throwing in more statistics. There is only so much that statistics alone can say about our society. Meanwhile, everything Prejean said about Dobie, O’Dell, Scalia, Bush, and other notable people added a little bit more to her overall argument, that being against the death penalty is not just about the wrongs of killing the innocent. It is about the wrongs of killing anyone in general through emotional, religious, political, and logical means. (“You kill, you get killed” is hardly logical, if not at all.)
While I do agree that the most corrupt prosecutors are seen as the villans to Prejean and her argument is a little overreaching at times, it is certainly better to be “overreaching” than “underreaching.” Prejean does a good job at showing common arguments for the death penalty and, more importantly, how real people, including the Pope, can switch sides after they see the fallacies of their reasoning. I can tell that Prejean put in much work and detail into this book and did not want to leave any stone unturned.
I think Prejean did what she set out to do. She wrote a book that seriously questioned the morals of the death penalty. I think the first two chapters managed to do that well, mostly because she was introducing the reader to individuals who had been wronged. It’s a lot easier to move someone with an individual’s story than with a bunch of statistics. And she said that herself in the book. She explained that the reason many people are okay with the death penalty is because they don’t know much about it, or those affected by it. So she clearly decided to introduce the reader to those affected by the death penalty.
She doesn’t just introduce the reader to the person in each case, she also introduces them to the case itself. I tended to think that the case is what got me more fired up throughout the reading. Especially in Dobie’s case where it seems all evidence points to the fact that he could not have committed this crime.
However, I don’t think it was ever Prejean’s intention to argue for the death penalty. So she never spent much time doing so. I don’t really think that this was a weakness in the book though, as she tells the reader, she has dedicated her life to abolishing the death penalty. So how can we expect a book, written by her, to argue both sides?
Some of the facts Sister Helen uses to build support for her anti-death penalty parade seem poorly-rationalized and under-thought: “The vast majority of American citizens in practice have already begun to shut down the machinery of death.” This is the argument Sister Helen makes, only to back up her claim via weak and circumspect rationale: “If we add the twelve states that forbid all executions to the twenty-six states that rarely kill, we find that thirty-eight out of fifty states are letting the death penalty slip into disuse.” Sister Helen herself noted that it is among perhaps a dozen southern states in which most executions are concentrated, and among these states support for the death penalty has hardly lost footing; as for the other states, which have either always banned or always disfavored the use of the death penalty, it does not an adequate argument make to say that something is “slipping into disuse” among a specific group of states which have already sanctioned its rarity (if not complete absence).
Further, given this same argument (that support for the death-penalty among the fifty states is trending downward, and therefore we, as readers, should join the popular cause), I take issue with the somewhat hypocritical bandwagon propaganda that Sister Helen believes will alight support for her anti-death penalty platform: It seems to me that Sister Helen has filled more than a few chapters with her caution against the folly in the courts’ eagerness to follow the precedent of questionable decisions like McCleskey v. Kemp, with prosecutors and justices thereby upholding a legacy of racial discrimination for fear of otherwise challenging the system. Why take a stand against the death penalty when its legality is already upheld and its support is more-or-less widespread? This mindset displays the bandwagon effect at its finest, as Sister Helen has surely pointed out. However, the very epidemic Sister Helen once criticized is the same tactic she uses to build support for her own cause, in saying that “all the states are doing it (and therefore, so should you).” I won’t criticize the intent behind a cause Sister Helen hopes will save lives, but the manner in which she pads her own argument undermines the strength of the arguments she earlier made against America’s justice system.
I find it interesting that so many people cite Sister Prejean’s use of facts and statistics as the most effective part of her argument, which is not to say that I disagree. Actually I too found the logistical points to be the most persuasive, however by the book’s end I felt like her blatant bias and strong emotions pertaining to the subject almost undermined the factual evidence. Prejean goes out of her way to portray those on her side of the argument as human beings, people who are more than the sum of their mistakes and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. She humanizes those who society has deemed monsters, Dobie Williams, Joseph O’Dell, Karla Faye Tucker. On the other side of the coin we find those who disagree with Prejean’s point of view, the prosecutors, Justice Scalia, George Bush, and others. Though she has exhausted every opportunity to make the reader sympathize with the victims of the death penalty, she hardly extends the same courtesy to those who enforce it. By the book’s end I practically expected Justice Scalia to whip off his robes and reveal a forked tail and pitchfork. The point of my rambling is to question how well Prejean has represented the facts on the opposing side of the argument. I can’t remember reading any statistics that comment on the effectiveness of capitol punishment in the deterrence of heinous crimes, a point I find to be one of the most important in the argument. With the way Sister Prejean has stacked the emotional deck to support her viewpoint I can’t help but wonder if she has chosen to highlight only the facts that cast doubt on the effectiveness of the death penalty while ignoring those that might give it more credence in a practice similar to that of the prosecutors whom she rails against.
Oh. When I wrote capitol punishment I definitely meant capital punishment. Whoops.
Many of you who commented above discussed how compelling Prejean’s arguments were against the death penalty. You laid out how she leads the reader through the stories of the men giving you unrelenting evidence that these men, Dobie and Joe, were completely innocent of the crimes they were convicted of and, ultimately, put to death for. However by the end of the book, that was almost all she had convinced me of: that Dobie and Joe were innocent and the United States Justice system is flawed. She effectively convinced me that with life imprisonment there is no need for the death penalty, especially when there are so many wrongful convictions. She has convinced me that innocent men should not be killed by the state. I don’t believe that any sane person needed to be convinced of this.
The inhumanity of the death penalty and the possible incongruity with the eighth amendment which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” of prisoners seems like almost a sub-point of her book. She backs this up using two arguments: the mental torture inflicted on prisoners as they sit for years in a cell knowing that they are going to die, and the dehumanization created by the various manners of executions. The reader is reviled by her descriptions of grown men having to wear diapers to a gas chamber in which they will be suffocated to death at the push of a button, or the manner in which men are strapped to a table while they are stuck with needles. By the end, though, I was horrified by the horrendous treatment of prisoners by good people. However, I happen to agree with Prejean that the death penalty is inhumane and unconstitutional. If I was pro death penalty I am not sure I would pause at the fact that men guilty of heinous crimes (and I recognize that many who are put through this treatment are not guilty) are put to death.
As to the question of a one sided argument I think it was almost completely one sided. But Sister Helen never pretended to be even vaguely two-sided or to try and give a fair representation of arguments against the death penalty. However she did herself a disservice by taking some of the worst arguments for the death penalty instead of trying to show the folly in even the most convincing arguments.
She states that she said to Justice Scalia that she would make a fool out of him in her book. What she does is make a joke out of the Justice Scalia that showed up to speak with university students at Georgetown University where he didn’t need anyone to make a fool out of him he did that for himself. Justice Scalia is not in the least a fool. She ignores the ultimate reasoning behind his arguments for the death penalty and says that his opinion is based off of his moral beliefs not his studies of the constitution as a supreme court justice. If she was going to make this argument she needed to address the fact that Justice Scalia is an originalist. He reads the constitution coupled with the original intent of it’s framers. If we look, then, to the time in which the constitution was being created men were being tarred and feathered, lynched, and quartered by horses. Thus, being Justice Scalia, with his way of reading the constitution it would be contradictory to say that the death penalty is unconstitutional. What she is taking argument with is the fact that Justice Scalia sees the the constitution through the original intent rather than seeing it as a living document free to be changed at will.
The other people who seem to be pro-death penalty are the prosecutors and judges (on various courts) who ignored court procedure in some cases and used procedures to ignore facts in other cases. Many of these examples are of unjust or corrupt people. Whether they are for the death penalty or against it is irrelevant. The main issue is that they are fighting to get their way regardless of truths that are seemingly impossible to ignore. If she were to argue against the death penalty using cases in which there are guilty people, and good prosecuters doing their job, and the United States justice system prevails, she simply have the inhumanity of the death penalty process to hold up as a reason to abolish the death penalty.
But no doubt about it, that is a very, very compelling reason.
Sorry that was so long….
I agree with Alex– I only recently finished the book, but I certainly feel that inadequate attention was paid to the positive effects of death penalty enforcement. I too, found the emotional fervor of Prejean’s arguments unarguably compelling, if not somewhat overwhelming. Prejean was smart: She titles her book “The Death of Innocents,” thereby implying that her argument will focus around unwarranted executions. But her real argument lies in the eradication of all executions, and she uses the heartfelt stories of Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell to provide the emotional fervor necessary to build support for her true underlying convictions.
I am not sure if this has been mentioned on this topic yet, or if it has, I apologize for missing it, but I would like to weigh in that I am not a great fan of the way Prejean uses her religion seemingly as often as facts to make her case against the death penalty. One example of that is when she is criticizing Justice Scalia being a part of the “machinery of death” and a huge, immoral proponent of capital punishment. While she may use his own phrase against him and bring in religion on account of his religious beliefs in her argument, many times it seems that she is saying that his morals and religion should come into play during death penalty cases and should cause him to think differently, as Justice Blackmun did. I agree with most everyone here that she convincingly got the audience on her side the way she presented the allegedly-innocent O’Dell and Williams as victims of a cruel and eye-opening court system, thus the punny title (Innocents and Innocence), but upon seeing that she implied Supreme Court Justices should be influenced by personal beliefs, hopefully in turning them against the use of capital punishment, her presumptuous beliefs upset me. The law should be separate from compassion, as its duty is not to do what seems to be the right thing, but to enact justice, whatever the outcome. It is human morals and ethical dilemmas that don’t allow for any sort of strict legal code regarding the death penalty in the first place. I am not saying that it can or should change, for we are not devoid of emotion and ethics, but her arguments that the way people as powerful as Supreme Court Justices should interpret the law based on religious morals, at least in Scalia’s case, are upsetting.
I agree with the common theme of all of the responses that Prejean is a very effective and persuasive storyteller. Her extensive knowledge of the death penalty coupled with the first hand experience of being with death row inmates as they struggle through extensive appeals and untimely death gives Sister Helen a multidimensional understanding of the whole process which few others posses. The most impressive aspect of Prejean’s storytelling abilities though is the restrained and well-rounded approach she goes about presenting information. She leaves no doubt in the readers mind what her views are about the death penalty, and certain individuals that support it, but “The Death of Innocents” does not turn into a repetitive invective against pro-death views. This is because more likely then not Sister Helen chooses to present facts rather than opinions and does not rely on emotion driven accusations and name-calling, which many politicians and authors use, to make her arguments. Prejean writes about resisting the temptation to throw “low blows” at her opposition when she was asked to respond to then Governor Bush’s denial of clemency to Karla Faye Tucker,
“Immediately after the statement, King turned to me for response. When I heard Bush say, ‘God bless Karla Faye Tucker,’ I had to struggle mightily to keep a vow I made to reverence every person, even those with whom I disagree most vehemently. Inside my soul I raged at Bush’s hypocrisy, but the broadcast was live and global.” (250)
Sister Helen’s unconditional respect for all humans makes her arguments so compelling and strong.
I disagree with the criticism that Prejean does not present an opposite viewpoint, which some of the early responses included. During the section where she discusses Justice Scalia, Sister Helen illustrates his viewpoints very clearly through direct quotes, his supreme court voting record, and her research on the topic. During the other sections of the book, which seem very opinionated, Prejean is arguing against prosecutors and a judicial system that claims to champion “Equal Justice Under the Law” and presents facts about how they are not living up to the ideals they claim to protect. It is true that many parts of the judicial system and most prosecutors are successful and honest in their protection of the law, but when evaluating a system that decides if people live or die nothing less but 100% accuracy can be accepted without dissent.
I agree with Jeremy that Prejean uses religion, more than statistics to prove her point. Although, this is the lense which Prejean views the issue, for someone who is so critical of others using religion to justify capital punishment, she herself uses religion to argue against capital punishment. Because of the separation of church and state the long explanations of how Catholicism does not support the death penalty seemed irrelevant to me, and it was hard for me to follow Prejean’s logic.
However, as many have said, she tells a side of the story the public does not often hear: the people on death row. We often hear the prosecutions side, which portrays these people as cold-blooded killers. However men she described were all charming, sincere, and regretful (and therefore very likeable) and I’m sure this isn’t the case for every individual on death row, but she shows it’s important to remember that these men are humans.
To summarize, I thought Prejean did an excellent job telling the story of them men on death row and describing the injustice that they experienced. However, she was often biased: portraying the prosecution as always searching for a severe punishment rather than justice and used religion more than fact to support her arguments.
Sister Helen is an undoubtedly good writer, but I wonder if I would have been equally affected if a book of the same strength and emotion had been written by a supporter of capital punishment. As a reader who was (and still relatively is) fairly ignorant of capital punishment, I was a perfect forum for Sister Helen to unleash her argument. Speaking from a literature standpoint, I really enjoyed her prose-like sections of the book; I didn’t particularly enjoy the hard facts and statistics of the book, especially in regards to Justice Scalia. I totally understand the merits of these facts, but I find things easier to understand when they seem like fiction (which is probably counterintuitive to Sister Helen’s goal for the book).
She probably did use her religious slants a little too much when presenting her argument, but she is a nun after all. Had she been an accountant or something and quoting the Bible or referencing the catechisms, yeah, I’d have a problem. But she’s a NUN-her faith influences everything in her life. It’s her job. I dunno, I suppose I’m okay with her infusing Catholic teachings into her evidence. However, I did not always enjoy her tone–it was a little too preachy/self righteous at points (mainly the latter).
I don’t think she presented the other sides of the argument all that fairly, but I don’t think that was her goal with the book; her goal was to convince the reader that capital punishment is wrong. And I’d say she succeeded, for the most part. It’s difficult for anyone to present a totally impartial view, but that wasn’t even her concern. She relied on the pathos of readers, which doesn’t make for the “fairest” argument, but it does make for an effective one.
I think the most effective element of Sister Helen’s story is her straightforward manner in telling it. She didn’t mince words, or try and make the truth nicer for readers to hear. However, she also didn’t oversimplify her own opinions, and had statistics, facts, and quotes to support her. Many of her arguments I had already heard, though the religious aspects were mostly new to me. It was nice to hear the various arguments that the Bible offers. Obviously, I believe that her story was strongly influenced (and, of course, based on) her personal opinions, though I also believe that she gave her opposition a fair amount of space in her story.
I agree with Bethany. I think that I was much more persuaded by the emotional pull of the book found in the stories of Dobie Williams and Joseph O’Dell. I think that if the book had just been a book of statistics, it would have been interesting but I would not have left the book feeling more passionate about the death penalty as I did after reading the personal stories. I think the statistics were a great part of the book but it would not have been as effective if that was all that sister Helen Prejean had presented to the reader.
I also think that sister Helen Prejean did use her religion a little too freely. Yes, she is a nun, but even if she had written the book without as much of the religious flavor, it still would have been a moving and shocking book. It could have done without some of the preachy parts that occur through out the book. She was not focused on writing a book that weighed the pros and cons of the death penalty but rather showing how horrible the death penalty can be and that it is her opinion that it is not something that America needs. She achieved captivating me at least as the reader and challenged all who read the book to further learn about the death penalty. As Bethany said, Sister Helen Prejean’s argument might not have been the fairest but it certainly was compelling and left me wanting to learn more.
I think that her arguements were undeniably pursuasive because the men who were killed in the book were innocent. However, even if they weren’t innocent, I think her moral logic was sound. I agree with everyone who said that her religious beliefs slanted her writing. She often turned to bible to justify her beliefs, which isn’t a reliable source for information because not everyone believes the bible is the truth. Her arguments barely covered the constitutionality of the death penalty when the victims are guilty. She seemed to focus more on the unfairness of the distribution of the death penalty rather than whether or not it was a justifiable punishment for serious crimes.
When reading the book, there were a couple things that stood out to me about the way that Sister Helen told her stories. Not only did she point out the obvious holes and injustices in the evidence and prosecution of the cases of Dobie and Joe O’Dell, but she made you feel like you knew the people she wrote about. You felt their emotions and the emotions of the people surrounding them, and the injustice of the death penalty as a punishment. Additionally, her arguments do focus on the moral aspect of capital punishment, but also focus heavily on the injustice and prejudices of the court system that lead to a death penalty sentence. It is also necessary to point out that Sister Helen’s story is, for the most part, one-sided — though there is never any illusion that it is more than that. I have come to the conclusion that because her story is fairly one-sided, it is not necessarily fair to both sides of the argument. A supporter of the death penalty would have pointed out that the methods used in courts (depicted by Prejean as a scheming prosecution team and the under dog defense) are used by both sides. But then again, it was never her goal to give both sides of the argument. Sister Helen wanted to convince people that the death penalty is used in an manner often unjust and is responsible for ending the lives of many innocent people. She definitely confirmed what I already believed about the death penalty and has probably convinced many others that capital punishment needs to be either abolished or reformed.
Additionally, a big thing to keep in mind about her storytelling is that she has presented only two stories of innocent men being sentenced to death, and hoping that by telling these moving stories and bashing on the death penalty, the readers will then let their imaginations do the rest for her, contemplating how many others could have been, or could be killed, when their innocence may seem apparent to everyone except the court system judges. If she had been just a slight bit less effective in how she wove the two stories, I would imagine that more people would have seen that this is only two people. For me, it might have made more of an impact if she had gone into more depth about how many people were innocent and then put do death. Even though she wouldn’t have put as much detail and emotion into each story, knowing that there are many more with similar stories would have hit home that much harder with me.
Prejean writes well, but it is the way that she uses the readers to make her argument effective, oftentimes without their realizing it, without using an inordinate amount of facts to make her point. I wonder the same thing as Bethany: what if someone had written the same supporting the death penalty? The author could have talked about how criminals who have been proven beyond a doubt are guilty continue to get appeals via their greedy and hated defense attorneys, making the trials last years rather than days or weeks and costing the government and taxpayers huge amounts of money, and there are far more trials like this than the ones Prejean portrays.
One of the main things that stood out to me right away in this book and what, I think made it effective, was how human it seemed. I could feel the outrage and frustrations of the author and those fighting for justice and the humanity of each person executed. It makes the stories told and the exposing of the court system more real, devastating and disturbing. When an author integrates raw human emotions into a story, it becomes more relatable to the reader. It allows the people in this book to turn from “characters” in this “story” to real human beings with real emotions. As a reader, I can tell that the death penalty is something that Sister Helen is passionate about abolishing. However, this passion is what makes Sister Helen take sides in this debate. The way she writes this book is clearly against the death penalty and I feel as though she does a good job of supporting her argument, but she doesn’t really do a great job of touching base on why people support the death penalty. For instance, in the case of Dobie Williams, Sister Helen talks a great length about flaws in the evidence and I agree that those flaws should have been enough for the courts to at least consider that he was, most likely, innocent; but what about the evidence presented against him? Did the courts really just look at Dobie, see that he was a black man with a couple scrapes on his body and convict him? Maybe this was the case, but I can’t help but thinking that there’s more to this than Sister Helen mentioned in her book. The biasness of this book was one thing I kept noticing time and time again. But maybe this is because in high school, I had a teacher that really emphasized the importance of impartiality. Every non-fiction book we ever read was, according to my teacher, as close to objectivity as he could find.
I think the bigger picture of what Sister Helen is getting at here is less about innocent people that have been wrongly executed, and more about human compassion and having sympathy because no matter what crime anybody commits, we’re all human beings. The author references this idea throughout all the stories she told…of both the innocents and guilty.